"The Linux Gazette...making Linux just a little more fun!"

The Complaint Department: Typos and Grammatical Errors

From David Augros on Sun, 10 Jan 1999

Dear Jimbo,

You seem to have all the answers (most of the ones to the good questions
anyway...), and I am sure your wife is as lovely as she is capable when it
comes to formatting and scripting. But the fact remains that every month,
TAG is replete with typographical and spelling errors that would make a
school teacher blush. Now I realize that you perform this service as a
gift to the Linux community, and let me assure you, we are most grateful
to benefit from your expertise and experience. I always enjoy reading
your piece, (and I think Heather's comments sometimes cut to the quick
much faster than yours do, ... women's intuition I guess). But, James, my
man, we really have to think about what this looks like to the rest of the
world. Yes the web and all other trappings of the internet bring with
them an historically unprecedented dynamic of ever new and ever updated
and always changing information... of this I am not unaware, but you still
really need someone to go over your article before publishing. The rules
of grammar do not change between most postings of TAG. Even an incompetent
editor would catch eighty or more percent of these errors. And I am not
talking about the sometimes illiterate nonsesnse that you receive as email
on a (most likely) daily basis, but your own answers to said mail. If
there is nobody else to do it, then let me know and we will work something
out. The fact is, I really can't stand to see another month's worth of
quality TAG go out to the world in the sorry state it has been doing so
for as long as I have been reading it. Once again, I think you are the
man, and I just want to help out here. That should be what you walk away
with.

My only complaint regarding your writing would be the
utter lack of paragraph structuring.

As you've noted, my faults related to a balance between
the time I can devote to the writing and editing vs. the
time I reserve for other work.

I'm sorry for those typos that get through. On the whole
of it I don't think my grammar is as deplorable as you
seem to suggest. However, it's probably not perfect.

I'd welcome an editor with the time to correct the typos
--- though I'm not sure how we'd arrange it.

I could ask Heather to read my work as she formats it,
with full license to edit it. Her, script is getting
pretty good, and she might find the time when I haven't
flooded her with close to 100 separate messages. We'll
see.

(Meanwhile I can understand your frustration to some
degree. I'm fairly forgiving when it comes to netnews,
e-mail and web forums --- but I find the number of typos
in professionally published and printed books to be pretty
irritating).

Warm regards,
Dave

Heather Answers Also

You seem to have all the answers (most of the ones to the good questions
anyway...), and I am sure your wife is as lovely as she is capable when it
comes to formatting and scripting. But the fact remains that every month,
TAG is replete with typographical and spelling errors that would make a
school teacher blush.

All one paragraph? "Typographical and spelling" -- I think Strunk would
frown. Calm down, have a nice cup of tea.

(Darn it, now I'll have to paint a speak bubble for myself. sigh)

[ Actually, I painted a couple bubbles, but I'm not sure which
to use, and would rather hope I don't become a regular on the
answering side. I'm kinda torn between an asterisk bubble (star,
get it?) or a bubble half drawn by a paintbrush. -- Heather ]

Bear in mind that I make very little effort to correct the querent, only the
AnswerGuy. Rewriting the query would reduce our readers' understanding
of how the question was asked. I only correct the AnswerGuy in the context
of reading the columns at a much faster rate than the average reader... so
a few things slip through. Was any of it difficult to understand because
of grammar? (Jargon isn't a grammar problem here -- people are asking about
technical issues.)

As I noted in one of the messages this last month, these are real people
asking, and a real person answering the question. Real people do not speak
perfect Oxford English, even though some try.

Now I realize that you perform this service as a
gift to the Linux community, and let me assure you, we are most grateful
to benefit from your expertise and experience. I always enjoy reading
your piece, (and I think Heather's comments sometimes cut to the quick
much faster than yours do, ... women's intuition I guess).

And avoiding making them except to provide real content... I'm more of a GUI
fan than Jim is, so have a smidge more experience with, as one querent put
it, Brand X compatibility.

But, James, my
man, we really have to think about what this looks like to the rest of the
world. Yes the web and all other trappings of the internet bring with
them an historically unprecedented dynamic of ever new and ever updated
and always changing information... of this I am not unaware, but you still
really need someone to go over your article before publishing. The rules
of grammar do not change between most postings of TAG.

Neither do deadlines. I do wonder, though, if the translators that convert
the Gazette into Italian, French, etc, make any effort to keep the "bad
grammar" of many of the querents intact.

Maybe I'll run one of the translations back through Babelfish... I have
reasonable evidence that its translations are terrible. It ought to be a
good laugh.

Even an incompetent
editor would catch eighty or more percent of these errors.

To edit for the purpose of adding HTML, and for the purpose of perfecting
the grammar, are not the same thing.

And I am not
talking about the sometimes illiterate nonsesnse that you receive as email
on a (most likely) daily basis, but your own answers to said mail. If
there is nobody else to do it, then let me know and we will work something
out. The fact is, I really can't stand to see another month's worth of
quality TAG go out to the world in the sorry state it has been doing so
for as long as I have been reading it.

As the Gazette is completely under the LDP, you are of course welcome to
correct it, including old issues. The web is not the print medium, so you
do not really have to feel it is frozen on paper and irreparable, even if
its publishing schedule deliberately follows a magazine format.

Considering your offer more thoughtfully, how are you at tight deadlines?
We're talking 3 days or less here.

I really hope you're not planning to restructure whole sentences or
paragraphs; they often make better sense when taken as a whole than
when taken alone. Nor is perfect grammar always desirable; many of the
world's classic novels get bad grades from Grammatik(tm).

Once again, I think you are the man, and I just want to help out here.
That should be what you walk away with.

My only complaint regarding your writing would be the
utter lack of paragraph structuring.

See splits, above.

As you've noted, my faults related to a balance between
the time I can devote to the writing and editing vs. the
time I reserve for other work.

I'm sorry for those typos that get through. On the whole
of it I don't think my grammar is as deplorable as you
seem to suggest. However, it's probably not perfect.

I'd welcome an editor with the time to correct the typos
--- though I'm not sure how we'd arrange it.

I could ask Heather to read my work as she formats it,
with full license to edit it. Her script is getting
pretty good, and she might find the time when I haven't
flooded her with close to 100 separate messages. We'll
see.

I have always assumed I had license to edit, but I only correct fairly
minor things. I'm trying to provide to the world basically the same
letter the querent received. To change it too much, would mean we were
becoming more of a "useful topics this month" column rather than faithful
republication of your mail threads.

For example:

I will not completely reformat sentences, but I will add the occasional
spaced-out verb or delete doubles. (If this leads to the oft-bemoaned
"passive voice" - tough luck.) These aren't that common.

I make a sincere (but I suspect insufficient) effort to get the right
"its"/"it's" since Jim's mental spellchecker seems to consider
them equal. "There" and "they're" seem to get swapped occasionally too.

Sometimes, URLs have moved since the answer was given.

Occasionally my own mental spellchecker catches something out of place.
However, usually I'm going too fast.

I don't run ispell against it because I'd constantly have to feed jargon to
our dictionary. I don't have time for that. I don't even remember if I ran
'lynx -traverse' across the tree this time like I normally do, to
check for broken links.

As a personal comment I consider any change to the original content to
be gravy; my purpose in transmuting the messages to HTML is to retain the
appearance of the original mail. In some threads, that's a lot of work.

(Meanwhile I can understand your frustration to some
degree. I'm fairly forgiving when it comes to netnews,
e-mail and web forums --- but I find the number of typos
in professionally published and printed books to be pretty
irritating).

Last I heard all of Linux Gazette is a volunteer, unpaid effort. (To my
knowledge none of the authors and editors lack a seperate job.) Perhaps
if it is ever "professionally published", i.e. put in book form, it will
be sifted through for inocuous typos.

However, I suspect those wanting a more organized restructuring of the
knowledge Jim has to offer will be willing to wait for his book, which is
a paid effort, with paid editors.

Heather Stern
Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent
if no birds sang there except those that sang best. -- Henry Van Dyke

David Replies...

From Heather Stern on Sat, 16 Jan 1999

All one paragraph? "Typographical and spelling" -- I think Strunk would
frown.

I agree. I used to write term papers that way too. I'll probably never
break the habit. But salt-water-taffy-wise, I think the message was OK.

Calm down, have a nice cup of tea.

Earl grey for me, thanks.

Was any of it difficult to understand because of grammar? (Jargon isn't
a grammar problem here -- people are asking about technical issues.)

My point does not concern comprehension so much as presentation. If a
questioner says something silly, ungrammatical, or can't spell to save his
life, that's one thing. But when Jim's answers contain very preventable
errors, it just looks sloppy, and it is this that I wish to address. It
may be a very superficial point, but it remains a point nonetheless.

As I noted in one of the messages this last month, these are real people
asking, and a real person answering the question. Real people do not speak
perfect Oxford English, even though some try.

I agree that speech is informal, and I would never suggest that it is
important to correct spoken grammar-- the whole "spoken" dynamic of
usenet, email, and even TAG is a wonderful thing, and you are right to
want to preserve it. But TAG is also something more than plain speech.
These messages are archived and available for the indefinite future. Web
publishing, though more liquid than other forms, is still publishing, and
as such, it lacks the character of the spoken word which bounces off the
walls and ceiling and seeps into oblivion. I say, leave the questioner to
fend for himself, his crummy wording is his alone. But Jim's responses
reflect the professionalism of TAG, The Linux Gazette, and more remotely,
but still in a real way, the whole Linux community. Jim's column would
benefit from a "typo filter," and the whole world would be just that much
sunnier

<...snippage...>

Maybe I'll run one of the translations back through Babelfish... I have
reasonable evidence that its translations are terrible. It ought to be a
good laugh.

Babelfish is terrible, but it seems to be the best thing going for now.
I have a perl script which gives a nice command line interface the said
fish, and it has provided me with many good laughs. I can send it if you
like.

Even an incompetent
editor would catch eighty or more percent of these errors.

To edit for the purpose of adding HTML, and for the purpose of perfecting
the grammar, are not the same thing.

Please understand that I in no way intended to imply that you were
incompetent (or less than that as it seems you have taken it). This
remark was meant to highlight the fact that no such editor is now in the
loop, and that even a poor one would be better than none at all. I know
the difference between formatting for HTML and general editing, and I
understand it is the former for which you are primarily responsible. It
was my intention to point out that noone is responsible for the latter,
nothing more than that.

As the Gazette is completely under the LDP, you are of course welcome to
correct it, including old issues. The web is not the print medium, so you
do not really have to feel it is frozen on paper and irreparable, even if
its publishing schedule deliberately follows a magazine format.

It is not so much my desire to have a "correct" copy of the Gazette for my
own personal use as it is my desire to see the Gazette show its best face
to the world. And that face is currently located at
http://linuxgazette.net/issue36.

Considering your offer more thoughtfully, how are you at tight deadlines?
We're talking 3 days or less here.

Three days is more than enough time to do an old s/there/their/ hear and
their, if you understand my meaning.

I really hope you're not planning to restructure whole sentences or
paragraphs; they often make better sense when taken as a whole than
when taken alone. Nor is perfect grammar always desirable; many of the
world's classic novels get bad grades from Grammatik(tm).

First of all, Grammatik can do something unmentionable to something else,
even less mentionable to the first unmentionable thing. Secondly, the
kind of thing I am proposing here is like the following
(from http://linuxgazette.net/issue36/tag/b.html):

to this:
... kernel core team has soundly rejected suggestions that Linux adopt

I have always assumed I had license to edit, but I only correct fairly
minor things. I'm trying to provide to the world basically the same
letter the querent received. To change it too much, would mean we were
becoming more of a "useful topics this month" column rather than faithful
republication of your mail threads.

For example:

I will not completely reformat sentences, but I will add the occasional
spaced-out verb or delete doubles. (If this leads to the oft-bemoaned
"passive voice" - tough luck.) These aren't that common.

I make a sincere (but I suspect insufficient) effort to get the right
"its"/"it's" since Jim's mental spellchecker seems to consider them equal.
"There" and "they're" seem to get swapped occasionally too.

Sometimes, URLs have moved since the answer was given.

Occasionally my own mental spellchecker catches something out of place.
However, usually I'm going too fast.

I agree with/completely understand/fully support all of the above.

Last I heard all of Linux Gazette is a volunteer, unpaid effort. (To my
knowledge none of the authors and editors lack a seperate job.) Perhaps
if it is ever "professionally published", i.e. put in book form, it will
be sifted through for inocuous typos.

Just becuase it is a volunteer effort does not mean that it has to be
sloppy. The kernel was written and is maintained by a strictly unpaid army of
programmers, and it is a beautiful piece of work. We should all hold
ourselves to the same standards. God bless America... OK, I'll stop now.

However, I suspect those wanting a more organized restructuring of the
knowledge Jim has to offer will be willing to wait for his book, which is
a paid effort, with paid editors.

I will be the first one on my block to buy it, as soon as it is available,
you can count on it.

All things end up somewhere, and here we are...

--Dave

Heather again: Let's see what the rest of the world thinks

From David Augros on Sun, 17 Jan 1999

[snip]

My point does not concern comprehension so much as presentation. If a
questioner says something silly, ungrammatical, or can't spell to save his
life, that's one thing. But when Jim's answers contain very preventable
errors, it just looks sloppy, and it is this that I wish to address. It
may be a very superficial point, but it remains a point nonetheless.

So Jim is supposed to be held to higher standards in just tossing off an
answer than the world of people is when tossing off a question. Hmmm. I'm
not sure I agree.

As I noted in one of the messages this last month, these are real people
asking, and a real person answering the question. Real people do not speak
perfect Oxford English, even though some try.

I agree that speech is informal, and I would never suggest that it is
important to correct spoken grammar-- the whole "spoken" dynamic of
usenet, email, and even TAG is a wonderful thing, and you are right to
want to preserve it. But TAG is also something more than plain speech.
These messages are archived and available for the indefinite future.

It isn't graven in stone; if you want to apply edits, go for it, and send
the corrected package to the editor of Linux Gazette. There may be a delay
but she will probably post changes.

Web publishing, though more liquid than other forms, is still publishing,
and as such, it lacks the character of the spoken word which bounces off the
walls and ceiling and seeps into oblivion.

Actually, I suspect people like the Answer Guy column because he really
speaks with them, not because he stands at a Virtual Podium and makes
perfect Oxford English speeches. Although his words are kept from oblivion
by their posting, I do not think they lose their spoken nature here.

I say, leave the questioner to
fend for himself, his crummy wording is his alone. But Jim's responses
reflect the professionalism of TAG, The Linux Gazette, and more remotely,
but still in a real way, the whole Linux community. Jim's column would
benefit from a "typo filter," and the whole world would be just that much
sunnier

Well, tell ya what. I'll make more of an effort to clobber typos as I
roll through the column. And we'll see if anyone else in the world even
notices. If they do, and I am just not good enough at mopping them up,
then we'll see what can be done about slipping a grammarian into the loop.

<...snippage...>

Maybe I'll run one of the translations back through Babelfish... I have
reasonable evidence that its translations are terrible. It ought to be a
good laugh.

Babelfish is terrible, but it seems to be the best thing going for now.
I have a perl script which gives a nice command line interface the said
fish, and it has provided me with many good laughs. I can send it if you
like.

Nah, I have better humor sources for my usual fun. Send it to the 2cent tips
if you feel inclined.

[snip]

As the Gazette is completely under the LDP, you are of course welcome to
correct it, including old issues. The web is not the print medium, so you
do not really have to feel it is frozen on paper and irreparable, even if
its publishing schedule deliberately follows a magazine format.

It is not so much my desire to have a "correct" copy of the Gazette for my
own personal use as it is my desire to see the Gazette show its best face
to the world. And that face is currently located at
http://linuxgazette.net/issue36.

And you seem to retain the delusion that it's burnt in and can't be changed
now that it's posted. In fact, a couple of months ago when I discovered
I'd broken some posted URLs, I sent the correction in, and pif they were
corrected. I'd like to think this isn't just because I help edit HTML.

Considering your offer more thoughtfully, how are you at tight deadlines?
We're talking 3 days or less here.

Three days is more than enough time to do an old s/there/their/ hear and
their, if you understand my meaning.

If you're only going to do search-and-replace I am certainly not adding
another human to the loop... 3 days, maybe 4, is the total deadline block,
from the last posting until I've sent in a final package, and I usually post
an interim or two. The interim postings are because we're usually darn
close to late -- and I refuse to leave Marjorie high and dry with all of
it if we have a last minute problem.

I really hope you're not planning to restructure whole sentences or
paragraphs; they often make better sense when taken as a whole than
when taken alone. Nor is perfect grammar always desirable; many of the
world's classic novels get bad grades from Grammatik(tm).

First of all, Grammatik can do something unmentionable to something else,
even less mentionable to the first unmentionable thing. Secondly, the
kind of thing I am proposing here is like the following
(from http://linuxgazette.net/issue36/tag/b.html):

to this:
... kernel core team has soundly rejected suggestions that Linux adopt

That's fair.

[snip]

Last I heard all of Linux Gazette is a volunteer, unpaid effort. (To my
knowledge none of the authors and editors lack a seperate job.) Perhaps
if it is ever "professionally published", i.e. put in book form, it will
be sifted through for inocuous typos.

Just becuase it is a volunteer effort does not mean that it has to be
sloppy. The kernel was written and is maintained by a strictly unpaid army of
programmers, and it is a beautiful piece of work. We should all hold
ourselves to the same standards. God bless America... OK, I'll stop now.

And you are not seeing the first edition of CVS source code these kernel
hackers posted, you're seeing one man's code plus repairs from possibly hundreds
of others. In the Gazette, the mail has been through exactly two people,
except in the case of some threads, and there it may have gone through as
many as five, except that it isn't the habit of mailing list readers to correct
other people's grammar when quoting them.

The LDP license offers the same opportunity for all readers who are not deep C
fishermen; thousands of eyes can read and correct the Linux Gazette, and every
HOWTO and MINI-HOWTO can be given fresh polish. Many info pages and man pages
could be improved as well; just send the fix to the package maintainer instead.
In short - don't just tell us how wonderful the world could be. Go forth and
make it prettier. You're on the right track in offering aid to us, but
missing the big picture.

However, I suspect those wanting a more organized restructuring of the
knowledge Jim has to offer will be willing to wait for his book, which is
a paid effort, with paid editors.

I will be the first one on my block to buy it, as soon as it is available,
you can count on it.

All things end up somewhere, and here we are...
--Dave

So, I'll be putting a little more effort towards grammar this month. Any
of you with a mind to it should pick a HOWTO, a MINI-HOWTO, or an old article
of the Gazette or some other LDP item, and apply yourself to it. We'll clean
up the open documentation of Linux like a bunch of Scrubbing Bubbles (tm?).

[ The Scrubbing Bubbles are a trademark of DowBrands, Inc.
-- Heather ]

Folks, let me know if you notice

Heather Stern
star@starshine.orgNever tell people how to do things. Tell them WHAT to do and they will
surprise you with their ingenuity. -- Gen. George S. Patton, Jr.